Stacked Fractions

[clarkmorgan]

We need stacked fractions in our dimensions. Such a simple feature set that has been overlooked for too long. Fits right in there with formatting options of schedules - Why, Why, Why? And no, we are not going to accept it, and no, it's not going to become anyone's standard just because Revit said so.

[Steve_Stafford]

Sorry, other than using the Character Map to insert symbols for fractions (text only, not actual dimensions) it's not possible in Revit. It would be a nice thing to have but I haven't heard of any buildings not getting built because the drawings didn't have stacked fractions.

[benjaminrossetti]

When my supervisor, who thinks cad drawings aren't as good as hand drawings, asks me to stack the fractions to make them more legible, and I say "Revit can't stack fractions," I feel like an idiot. Just saying...

[MikeJarosz]

There is an opposing view to stacked fractions in architectural hand drafting, which happens to be how I was trained. No stack at all! Just a superscript numerator and a subscript denominator. (3¹₂") If you have access to older hand drawn CDs, (such as existing building docs) look for it. I won't claim it's a mainstream technique, but it is surprisingly common. Because these are two character spaces, it might be possible to implement in Revit, unlike the true stacked fraction, which puts two characters plus the line in one character space.

[MikeJarosz]

Come to think of it, 3¹/_2" (3 characters) could also be done with some size manipulation for the "/"

[Revitaoist]

.....And no, we are not going to accept it, and no, it's not going to become anyone's standard just because Revit said so.

Go ahead and stick with line drafting - no one is forcing you to use Revit, just the competition, or better yet, make a balsa wood model that has nothing to do with real world construction.

[caddmannq]

I finally broke down and bit the bullet ($$$) to put our guys on Revit, and it turns out to be a powerful modeler that turns drafters into bookkeepers.

With apologies to all the rabid Revit apologists, but the lack of stacked fractions is unforgivable. The lack of a real word processor is unforgivable.
The idea that entering numbers into fields in a database is superior to graphical problem solving methods is insane.

Revit does so much and then just blows chunks on the little details that make my drawings look worth paying for.

Finally, I don't like telling my boss that Revit either "can't do that", or just makes something such a PITA it isn't worth doing.

I don't want to tell him that the 400 standard Autocad 2D details in our system will not only fail to upgrade seamlessly to Revit as advertised, lots of things in them won't migrate properly or at all.

2D guys! We're talking 2D drawings that Revit can't process because all those "workarounds" we've had to use to make AutoCAD look nice for 20 years* prevent translation to Revit!

*Over 20 years. I started CadApple in '87 then AutoCAD in '89. That followed 12 years of pencil drawing. I wouldn't go back to a pencil, and I won't be going back to AutoCAD, but I'm not gonna wave the white flag and wax poetical about how Revit is "worth it". It's worth it, more or less. It's just embarrassingly constrained in the graphic arts dept.

/rant